How do patients and physicians communicate about hereditary angioedema in the United States?

Background Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease that manifests as recurrent and debilitating angioedema attacks, significantly impacting patients’ quality of life. Objective To assess communication dynamics between patients with HAE and treating physicians and the impact this has on the treatment of HAE in the United States. Methods This observational study used an institutional review board–approved protocol to collect four sources of patient–physician communication data from the period between January 2015 and May 2017: in-office conversations between patients aged ≥18 years with HAE and physicians, follow-up dictations with physicians, telephone interviews with patients and physicians, and publicly available social media posts from patients. Participant language was qualitatively assessed and key communication elements and communication gaps identified. Results Twenty-five in-office conversations, 14 follow-up physician dictations, and 17 telephone interviews were conducted with a total of 29 unique patients, 4 caregivers, and 14 physicians. In-office conversations were generally physician-driven and focused primarily on symptom frequency, location, and severity; lexicon from both parties centered on “episodes” and “swelling.” During visits, impact on quality of life was not routinely assessed by physicians nor discussed proactively by patients; however, during telephone interviews and online, patients frequently described the multifaceted burden of HAE. Patients highlighted the difficulties they experience by using repetition, emphasis, and metaphors; they also varied the descriptors used for attacks depending on the communication goal. Physicians used intensifiers to emphasize the necessity of rescue medication access, whereas prophylactic treatments were positioned as an option for frequent or laryngeal attacks. Conclusion Vocabulary differences suggest that the full impact of HAE is not consistently communicated by patients to physicians during clinical visits, indicating the potential for misaligned understanding of disease burden. A patient-driven, rather than physician-driven approach to the discussions may elicit valuable information that could help to optimize treatment approaches.